Beyond ImagePro: the Future of PhotoNet

<p>Hello All! Sorry folks - I've been stuck in a small cramped conference room with designers and developers that smell like beef and cheese for many, many weeks trying to get beta ready. Yes - I've neglected the forum banter and missed the Glenn bashing so. Thank you all (well some of you) for the vote of confidence. The end of August I sincerely thought we were closer than we were. Today I feel better about beta than I have in a long time - trust me this is no easy task and someday I will share all the bumps in the road we encountered but that will come another day. We will be picking some beta testers from this crowd within the next week. Beta is still buggy - however the bug list is getting smaller by the day. We're working primarily on data migration - 21 years of data is not as easy to migrate as we originally expected. If you haven't seen this thread <a href="/site-help-forum/00clXE" rel="nofollow">http://www.photo.net/site-help-forum/00clXE </a>- please do read - it was my sincere attempt at responding back in August - as for timelines - if I could provide one I would - the team developing 2.0 is working extremely hard but that said, we've hit so many unexpected bumps that I simply stopped providing dates because I fully expected we'd be live by now, never mind "pre-beta". Best guestimate would be that we will be in full "beta mode" which will be open to invite only in 2 weeks - we will gather feedback and make changes where we can and schedule others for 2.1. Those are internal expectations now.</p>

<p>If concerned about the decline - yes I can point to our Google Traffic has declined. There have been many Panda and Penguin over the last 2 years - some hit us more than others. That said, Google traffic is a "nice to have" but those visitors are quickly viewing photos and then gone in less than 3 page views - thus they are not what we would term a "meaningful visit" in that they didn't create an account contribute to forums or upload their photography for critiques or offer to make any critiques. Our direct traffic (people that know where they want to go because they type in photo.net in their browser) has been steady. Those concerned with lack of talented photographers uploading you can see a nice sampling of talented photographers visiting and uploading - here http://www.photo.net/gallery/sample-gallery. Take a look - comment or even critique their photography - you never know....it might just catch on. </p>

<p>Thanks Glenn ! Great to finally get some signs of life and concrete information on what has been going on. Our worry must be a comfort for you guys in the cramped conference room.<br /> Looking forward seeing the results when the beta version has been fully tested.</p>

<p>Thanks for responding, Glenn.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<blockquote>

<p>>>> The only growth for photo.net given its current direction is in attracting more middle aged and retired senior dudes.</p>

<p>I agree. And thinking about what Jeff observed, maybe there's a win-win collaborative growth opportunity where photonet could offer discounted AARP memberships (and vice versa).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Brad, I will tell you what I tell my students who are dismayed that so many of their professors are middle-aged or older:</p>

<p><strong>TIME IS NOT ON YOUR SIDE!</strong></p>

<p>In any case, every single person on Photo.net is all for bringing more young photographers onto the site. Specific suggestions as to how to do that would be much appreciated.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>[M]aybe there's a win-win collaborative growth opportunity where photonet could offer discounted AARP memberships (and vice versa).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I hate <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=ageism&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb"><em><strong>ageism</strong></em></a>. The older I get, the more I hate it. For insurance purposes, I turned seventy years old just nine days ago. Holy Methuselah! I must now be totally worthless and impervious to new methods and new ideas.</p>

<p>Open-mindedness and receptiveness to new ideas and ways of doing things do not really decrease with age, Bradley.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Appreciated, Glenn.</p>

<p>Lanni, I would not go to the extreme of "hating" ageism. I spare that for other and more worthwhile "-isms", like fascism and the like.</p>

<p>Personally I know of younger persons who are old before they turn 40 in their way of living, writing, speaking and shooting photos. On the other hand I know of many older people beyond 60 who are still young. The "grey revolution", it has been called.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Lanni, I would not go to the extreme of "hating" ageism. I spare that for other and more worthwhile "-isms", like fascism and the like.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Okay, Anders, I <em>deplore</em> ageism.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

I can only speak to my own experience and observations, so here goes.

 

I think all photo forums and Photo.net in particular are suffering a bit due to photography it self being past its peak as of

some ten years ago and is now in steady decline. What has taken over and is all the rage is the smartphone and the

instant gratification movement of a photo graphic popping up and getting likes for perhaps a day on Facebook, Instagram

and other fast paced platforms.

 

I think the crowd on forums like these greatly underestimate how this shift has affected all aspects of photography,

including ones that seemed to occupy higher ground in terms of quality output.

 

I used to be very active on here when I first joined in 2001, posted photos, made friendships and all that. But what I

noticed over the years as they went by is that I was spending more and more time on the web chasing down copyright

infringements and simply talking about photography rather than actually doing it. In fact, anytime I am on the net at all....I

am at the furthest point possible from my desired lifestyle.

 

When I pulled nearly all my websites down in 2006 and largely stopped putting up portfolios on sites like this one, my life,

my career and my focus on photography improved far more than I would have expected. So I don't "share" my photos on

the web anymore, after all, no one "shares" my bills, my 401K contributions or my other expenses.

 

So I engage with photo forums for information, to update a group about a new or outgoing product, to give an opinion on

things. But even then....I really try to limit it, because for what I want out of my life as a photographer, spending time on

the Internet is not photography.

 

The forums on photo.net are an immense resource for information on photography, that is where its value is for me. As for

looking at photos on the web, unless looking for something specific, I just don't do that really as a matter of choice.

 

I hope the site sticks around, but for the most part I am not on here much because I am too busy living and making a

living as a photographer.

<p>I appreciate Daniel's perspective and would like to contribute an abridged opinion in the same spirit. </p>

<p>I don't think the explosive growth of one segment should necessarily mean it will be at the expense of another segment. Photography is a big enough domain to accommodate every imaginable innovation, and it has and will continue to. </p>

<p>Photo.net began as a "build it and they will come" entity which was predictably successful when it was the only game in town, but it failed at creating a strong brand-identity and spread itself too thin by wanting to be all-things-to-all-people on the premise that there is some generic characteristic or common denominator applicable to all photography while failing to identify and accommodate the real needs and wants of its users.</p>

<p>The Portrait and Fashion forum, for example, competes with sites the likes of ModelMayhem is bound to fail when the remaining site, geared toward ratings and critiques, does not accommodate the broader needs and expectations of fashion and portrait photographers. The same might also apply to all trade or gear related forums.</p>

<p>The gallery is solely focused on critiques and ratings - a questionable strategy that not surprisingly, and with few exceptions, results in exchanges where well-intention contributors end up hearing themselves talk but no one's listening. </p>

<p>If there's any truth to these observations, then it seems to me PN does not need more features, rather it needs to consolidate its strengths which is to promote "Photography as an Art Form" through a cohesive site (re)design where there is direct correlation and affinity between its complementary parts, and create a correspondingly strong brand identity. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Start posts which interest you.</p>

<p>How very simple is that to understand instead of waiting for someone else to do it for you.</p>

<p>Sharing is good that is what everything should be about not being up your arses.</p>

<p> Some folk believe this site is really about old codgers who just want to moan.....methinks pre- conceived thoughts</p>

<p>Give them wings and they will fly. </p>

<p>I've been looking at Flickr, but can barely understand what it is or how to use it. It feels too big. I think I'm one of those people who favors the 1996 Photo Net look.</p>

I use Flickr if I take a few dozen photos at a family event or on vacation and someone says, "Send me some of those photos". Then I upload them to Flickr and send the person the link to get there and peruse at their pleasure.

<p><strong>@ martin h</strong></p>

<p>Flickr <em><strong>is</strong></em> big and initially imposing to use. But, after a while there's a happy tendency to gravitate toward a niche or community. I used it for over a year before I uploaded many of my images and started to follow other users. Eventually, I started my own group (<a href="https://www.flickr.com/groups/grandvistas/">Grand Vistas</a>) and regularly contribute to at least a dozen others. Interplay between users is generally casual (as in <em>brief</em>) but I have also gotten some very thoughtful insight to a number of my photos. Better still, it's easy for me to follow the new work of other Flickr photographers whom I admire.</p>

<p>Flickr and Photonet are different worlds. the monthly traffic for the Flickr is 850 million whereas and for Photonet it is 2.6-3.0 million. In order to find your place on Flickr you need to create it, like Paul does by creating a "group". Photonet is more like a functioning community. A small town compared to a metropolis.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"As I said, forums are dying. This isn't specific to photography, it's been changing for almost a decade on the web. Unless there is some benevolent benefactor somewhere, the site has to grow with new blood and it isn't going to be through forums."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I've been pondering this, Jeff. Forums are an important fraction of this site and making a wrong business judgment will surely result in unintended consequences. <br>

<br>

I see forums as a solid and enduring platform. However, they appear not to be so due to every forum's unique life expectancy which is finite - when one dies, a new one take over bringing to life a new topic or subject. <br>

<br>

The cyclical pattern can be observed everywhere - cars, cameras, Hi-Fi, computers, or any of the hobby or professional forums. The more specific a forum is committed to, the more its life expectancy is tied to its subject's popularity but without the flexibility to expand. For example, a Pontiac G8 forum will be a dedicated place for all G8 enthusiasts to congregate and share information, but it will inevitably decline when GM killed its Pontiac division. A Mazda Miata forum, on the other hand, is likely to live on for decades but more of its discussions will be skewed toward later generations than earlier ones. <br>

<br>

Conversely, a generic forum spreads itself too thin and information becomes more difficult to dispense or find thus becomes self-restricting. For example, a Nikon forum is akin to a Chrysler forum - you will likely see less participation than a series of more specific forums such as Nikon Coolpix or Chrysler Hemi. <br>

<br>

Photo.net offers both forum-types but has not kept pace with evolving trends. <br>

<br>

The apparent popularity of videos does not necessarily diminish forum popularity or participation. It complements it by providing content which is impractical to describe in written form, but a video's usefulness is dependent on the skill of its presenter which is where forums fill the gap to provide clarity - sensor cleaning, for example. Video does have an edge with complex processes such as Photoshop screen-capture of detailed manipulations but that's only a specific area of photography. <br>

<br>

Forums are also indispensable for specific problems or topics a poster might have in areas such as business or dynamic situations like wedding shoots. <br>

<br>

Photo.net can leverage these types of insights and modify its forum structure, if they are accurate, to complement its strengths and attract new members. <br>

<br>

<br>

<br>

<br>

</p>

<p>For the most part, I like PN's differences from what's going on with the rest of the web. The more mainstream Photo.net tries to be, the less I'll be inclined to appreciate it. To me, it's always been a niche kind of place. And that includes there being many different niches within the bigger niche that is Photo.net.</p>

<p>I pay attention to younger people and they have a nice place in my life, but I am often aware that my needs and desires are different from theirs. Often, I find myself adapting to younger ways of doing things, especially when it comes to ease of use with technology and recapturing my own youth. But, I don't find that necessary in all walks of life.</p>

<p>I hope Photo.net can improve itself and build on its usefulness without diluting itself by trying to be all things to all people. It doesn't need to be and shouldn't strive to be.</p>

<p>For me, and I'm not in the <em>business</em> of running a web site, as a consumer, numbers are much less important than what the site has to offer me.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I see forums as a solid and enduring platform. </p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

The problem with statements like these is that they are irrelevant. It doesn't matter what an individual sees. It matters what a broad demographic sees. Photo.net isn't going to make enough money to survive without a substantial new influx, and, based on what is happening on the web, that isn't going to come from forums or from discussions of photography that don't encompass, in a very positive way, what tools people are using and how they use them.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>"The problem with statements like these is that they are irrelevant. It doesn't matter what an individual sees."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>It would be absolutely relevant if I was running the show, but since I'm not, it will be up to those running the show to determine the relative merits of forums. <br>

<br>

By the way, one might also argue the statement "<em>forums are dying. This isn't specific to photography, it's been changing for almost a decade on the web." </em>just as irrelevant based on personal observation and not on statistics. </p>

Bill Jordan, thanks for the tip on the "S"PPC" thingy in digital darkroom, I didn't know that existed. I just popped

over there and got a look at this week's opthalmologist class, now I get to have hours of fun browsing through

what was done in prior weeks.

<blockquote>

<p>By the way, one might also argue the statement "<em>forums are dying. This isn't specific to photography, it's been changing for almost a decade on the web." </em>just as irrelevant based on personal observation and not on statistics.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Spend an hour researching the topic on the web or a few months working in the web business and it is clear it has nothing to do with personal opinion. Forums are good for support and that type of thing and not particularly effective for ongoing community building, and especially poor for revenue generation, which commercial websites require.</p>

<p>@ Jeff Spirer</p>

<p>Did I miss someone present the idea that <em>better</em> forums were somehow crucial to PNET's profitability? I'm trying to understand your contention about forums dying. Surely you're not saying that forums are mutually exclusive to profitable websites. And, if you're not, it again becomes hard for me to understand the emphasis you're placing on their vitality and PNET's future. Would you include in the realm of dying forums Twitter and Facebook and every other social media site? Each, in essence, is a kind of forum.<br>

By the way, I'm fine with the PNET forums as they are. What some may find badly dated, I see as oddly elegant in an anachronistic kind of way. My wishes (ones that I have noted here previously) for PNET would be for an <em>ignore user</em> option, a <em>dedicated macro group,</em> <em>better image uploading</em> and <em>display</em> options.</p>

<p>@Paul Cervantes<br>

Just a quick comment here about the "ignore user" option; this would be an ideal way to help p.n be self-policing. If more than some selected number of users chose to ignore one poster, that poster could be dropped or perhaps warned automatically. That might help with the retetion of new users who have thin skins. It would also show moderators and admins who is likely to need correction!</p>

<p>While I have no problem with individual members using an ignore button, I'd have a major problem with administration using "number of ignores" as a device for generating warnings or dropping people. My guess is that as many superficial and thin-skinned people would use their ignore buttons as people with legitimate gripes of rules of the site being broken by those they choose to ignore. Having seen some people blocked (in the critique forum, which is currently allowed) for daring to give an honest critique, I know that ignore and block buttons can be used on a very emotional, knee-jerk, and downright silly basis. Ignore buttons can be used abusively as well, with the kind of ramifications being suggested. It's fine to give us all the right to be emotional, knee-jerk, and silly but administration should have much more substantive reasons for warning or banning a member. I happen to enjoy listening to many of those on the site who would be considered controversial and would likely garner a fair amount of ignores. Those people belong here and add a lot to the site. If you don't want to listen, ignore away, but don't make it a gateway to official warnings or banning.</p>

<p>And, if by some chance administration doesn't institute an ignore button, a good solution might be to simply pass over the posts of people you don't want to read or engage with.</p>

<p>Information/tutorial oriented threads and forums may benefit from grading by members and moderators with up/down votes, likes/dislikes. It can help elevate the most relevant replies to the top or make them easier to find for folks with similar questions.</p>

<p>But for open ended discussions and commentaries I haven't seen evidence that member-driven grading of responses improves the overall quality of the commentary. Mostly it creates a comfy bubble filter in which the most popular comments float to the top because it gives the most active participants a good feeling to be agreed with. You can see this effect on YouTube, Amazon reviews and other sites with member driven commentary and grading of commentary. Some chan type message boards tried the "sage" filter, which supposedly would downgrade the visibility of low value commentary. On boards, forums or comment sections that are dominated by a clique, they'll abuse the user-driven grading to create a bubble filter so that only comments they agree with the dominant clique are prominent, while valid criticisms or factual but unpopular replies that contradict the conventional wisdom are downvoted.</p>

<p>In the worst cases member-driven voting/grading results in a tyranny of the masses. In the worst of the worst cases the majority not only downvote differing or dissenting views, but then begin to abuse the nonconformists. <em>(A little bit of a digression, but that's also why a mixed model forum/commentary format that permits a combination of real, verifiable identities and pseudonyms always favors the pseudonymous/anonymous posters, who have nothing to lose and no reputation to be tarnished. Participants who use their real identities eventually may be forced out or silenced by abusive pseudonymous posters, which is why Facebook's commentary model adopted by newspapers and magazines tends to fail.)</em></p>

<p>The "ignore user" option has never worked. It was tried on uselessnet umpteen years ago. It doesn't work because other participants whom we haven't blocked, and who in turn haven't blocked the users we'd rather ignore, will quote those pesky folks verbatim. So we'll inevitably see comments from folks we'd rather ignore.</p>

<p>Same problem on IRC, to some extent (for folks who remember IRC, or still use it). You can block comments from pesky people, but not replies to those pesky people by other chat room participants whom you haven't blocked.</p>

<p>That's why moderated forums and chat rooms evolved out of the anarchy (or, if you prefer, the non-hierarchical state of the interweb at its natural state). On IRC, if a participant is pesky enough the channel op can mute someone who's normally okay but drunk-posting tonight; or kick them if they persist over time. On a discussion forum mods can temporarily suspend someone or ban them. If everyone preferred the non-hierarchical open communication format, in which we all take our choices and learn to simply ignore the pesky folks, well... we wouldn't be here on photo.net.</p>

<p>However I can see the potential value of a modified member-driven grading system in which up/down votes on other member replies are never publicly visible, but can be viewed by admin and/or mods to consider as data trends. That might save a lot of time and encourage more autonomy on the forums. We could respond only to sudden spikes in reported or caution-flagged comments/threads.</p>

<p>Overall I'm getting the impression that the most vocal participants in these discussions about the health and future of photo.net are generally satisfied with the old paradigm model, but wish it would work better.</p>